Encryptionizer vs. EFS
Microsoft’s Encrypted File System (EFS) will be an acceptable solution for many people. However we believe that NetLib® Encryptionizer® offers some important advantages over the Encrypted File System. We try to outline a few here.
| Feature / Comparison | NetLib Encryptionizer |
EFS | Comments |
| Operating Systems | WinNT, Win2K, WinXP, Win95, Win98, WinME,
Win3.X*, MSDOS*
* with legacy versions |
Win2K, WinXP | Encrypted files can be protected across different platforms and media types – e.g., SQL Server on Win2K and MSDE on WinME can both use same encryption strategy. |
| File Systems |
NTFS, FAT32, FAT16, CDROM, DVD, RDR, RAW | NTFS | |
| Encrypted files can be protected from Domain/Windows Administrator. |
Yes | No | Additional layer of protection disassociated with rights. |
| Files copied to non-NTFS media can be automatically encrypted | Yes | No | Backups can be automatically encrypted even if on non-NTFS media. |
| Performance |
Asynchronous I/O | Synchronous I/O | May possibly result in decreased performance, according to Microsoft |
| Support for Windows NT 4.0 |
Yes | No | |
| Supports encrypted files on CDROM and DVD |
Yes | No | |
| Can integrate into an install script | Yes | No | Easy to bundle with an application. EFS must be deployed by end user. |
| Keys can be stored on another server, diskette, CD, USB key, etc., for additional security. | Yes | No | |
| Can be used to encrypt individual columns | Yes (*) | No | (*)Requires column encryption option. |